I had great fun (and learned a lot) by playing with Legos as a kid, but I can also say exactly the same thing about LOGO too. Sure, it teaches you about geometry and programming and whatnot, but more importantly it was the coolest thing since Oregon Trail!
They are rigid in X:Y location but getting the signal to the right place at the right time doesn't in any way require the conversion of the signal from analog to digital at any point.
Really? You mean pixels on an LCD aren't signaled in a (more or less) similar way as cells in a RAM chip? I'm no electrical engineer, but I would have assumed...
Oh, weird. How does it do that? And, aside from the region locking, what "good" (from the MPAA's perspective) does retaining the CSS do? I mean, the CD is already copied, and presumably the image file can be copied too and read just like any other CSS-encrypted DVD...
A major difference is that copyright infringement was illegal before large numbers of people started downloading songs.
Whether it was the law that changed while society stayed the same (as in prohibition) or the technology that changed while the law stayed the same (as in the filesharing movement), the end result appears to be the same: the law ceases to represent the will of the people, and so the people cease to follow the law. IMHO, the only thing that remains to be seen is whether the bad law gets repealed (as in prohibition) or just continues to be ignored (as in the speed limit).
And the worst part is, if you tell them the truth -- "it does that because Microsoft sucks at making software" -- they don't believe you and think you've got some kind of unfounded grudge against Microsoft!
As Overzeetop said, what you need is gigabit ethernet to carry compressed signals and a computer at the other end to decode them. Trying to pipe uncompressed high-resolution video all over your house is impractical and, frankly, stupid.
Yes, especially since we're talking about ADA, not DAD.
I hate to break it to you, but newer displays (i.e., LCD and everything else that's not CRT) are inherently digital. So yes, we are talking about DAD conversion.
You talk about it in the same breath as the BSA and RIAA, and then still wonder what the issue is?!
The issue is that an "industry trade organization" is interested in profit, and might be motivated to corrupt the ideals behind Linux (and Free Software in general). That might be well-and-good from their perspective, but it wouldn't be good from the community's perspective. Therefore, people in the community could have cause to be worried about it.
Ripping DVDs will never be a necessary feature to the everyday user, because the everyday user couldn't care less about ripping DVDs to their computer to do anything legal.
Are you sure about that? I would imagine the market of people who would want to rip DVDs would be exactly the same market that would want a video iPod or an AppleTV, or who would buy videos from the iTunes store (of course, that might be part of why Apple hasn't done it -- it doesn't want to disrupt its own movie revenue).
No; what there needs to be is a mainstream killer app for DVD ripping that falls under Fair Use. We don't have that yet.
DVD killer app? Media servers. There are people who've invested thousands of dollars into big DVD jukeboxes, just so they don't have to go find the particular disc when they want to watch a movie. Stuff like MythTV (or AppleTV, or Windows Media Center -- although the latter two wouldn't be as good because they're proprietary) would let these people store their whole movie collections on a server in their closet and access them through a pretty on-screen interface, which would be a great improvement -- if only it were legal.
Also, movie download services will make normal people start to see the advantages of keeping movies on the computer, which might drive them to start wondering why they can't do the same with all the DVDs they already have as well.
Well, first of all I'm not an expert, so anything I say might be incorrect. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain:
It's like public-key cryptography. The TPM has a code (aka "private key") inside it that you don't know, but that Microsoft or the Trusted Computing Group or whoever does. They can send the TPM a message such that it needs that key to construct a proper response, and thereby tell whether the TPM is real or not. Unless you have that key (which you can only get from the Trusted Computing Group, AFAIK), you can't emulate a TPM.
Huh? Since when was I saying anything about one source of greenhouse gases vs. another? I completely agree that power plants (mostly coal-fired ones) are a huge problem, and that we should solve the problem as a whole by whatever is the most practical means (rather than picking out a specific little part and myopically focusing on it).
Of course, you've got to admit that a lot of the "low-hanging fruit" regarding power plants has already been plucked -- aside from the old ones, most already do have fairly extensive emissions equipment.
Incidentally, one problem I see that's common to environmentalists and not-environmentalists alike is that they all adopt one "pet technology" and try to push it as a "silver bullet" solution to the problem. For example, Bush et. al. keeps pushing hydrogen to the exclusion of all else, some people dismiss hydrogen completely and focus solely on corn ethanol, etc. That's stupid -- the real solution is going to be a combination of everything (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal/hydroelectric, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, batteries, fuel cells, ultracapacitors, etc.) and we really need to fund research in all of it instead of picking one thing and ignoring (and cutting the funding of!) the rest.
Or are you just saying that is how you think copyright law should work?
Almost. I'm saying that that's how the Internet does work, whether copyright law agrees with it or not. That's reality, and the law can't change it anymore than the law can make pi equal 3.
So what? They weren't the ones in charge when Microsoft's case was decided. (If they had been, and the result were the same, I'd be denouncing them as "democratic fascists" or something instead -- please don't mistake me for some kind of partisan asshole).
But, obviously, there's a limit to that. If food production is lowered enough, it will fall below that level. Without modern agricultural technology, and without increasing the land devoted to agriculture, the amount of food produced if all food was grown organically would be WAY below that level.
First of all, I have no problem with "modern agricultural technology." Although I do consider myself an environmentalist, I don't consider myself a Luddite.
Second, the whole reason why environmentalists protest against things is that they're harmful in the long run. If they weren't, there'd be nothing to protest about!
Third, farmland is finite whether "modern agricultural technology" is employed or not. So, either your suggestion is just as limited as mine, or you're asserting that technology will continue to allow production to increase indefinitely. For the latter to be true, then the technology must be sustainable (by definition), in which case we agree.
So either you're agreeing with me in that we need to use sustainable (i.e., environmentally responsible) technology, or you're agreeing with me that food production has a fixed upper limit (and therefore we might as well reach that limit in an environmentally responsible way).
You're right, I did already believe you -- or rather, you already believed me. : )
The best way for this to happen is for devices to proliferate the market wich take advantage of the crack-ability of CSS: players that take ripped DVDs, store and organize them, and are as simple and intuitive as Apple products: it has to be an appliance.
Speaking of Apple products, have you ever wondered why iTunes can't rip DVDs just like it does with CDs? It's due to a thing called the DMCA, which makes it illegal for Apple to provide such a function regardless of how technologically easy (and valuable for Apple) it would be to do. And that's why we'll never see what you suggest happen -- at least, not as long as the DMCA still stands.
Slashdot Mirror
I had great fun (and learned a lot) by playing with Legos as a kid, but I can also say exactly the same thing about LOGO too. Sure, it teaches you about geometry and programming and whatnot, but more importantly it was the coolest thing since Oregon Trail!
< == "<"
HTML entities -- learn them, love them, use them.
Really? You mean pixels on an LCD aren't signaled in a (more or less) similar way as cells in a RAM chip? I'm no electrical engineer, but I would have assumed...
Oh, weird. How does it do that? And, aside from the region locking, what "good" (from the MPAA's perspective) does retaining the CSS do? I mean, the CD is already copied, and presumably the image file can be copied too and read just like any other CSS-encrypted DVD...
o_O Do I even want to know what that thing's used for?
Whether it was the law that changed while society stayed the same (as in prohibition) or the technology that changed while the law stayed the same (as in the filesharing movement), the end result appears to be the same: the law ceases to represent the will of the people, and so the people cease to follow the law. IMHO, the only thing that remains to be seen is whether the bad law gets repealed (as in prohibition) or just continues to be ignored (as in the speed limit).
Yep, and it just becomes even more fucked up when you realize that Windows has a fancier permission system than unix! Why did Microsoft even bother?
And the worst part is, if you tell them the truth -- "it does that because Microsoft sucks at making software" -- they don't believe you and think you've got some kind of unfounded grudge against Microsoft!
Well there's your first mistake -- it's not "educational," it's brainwashing.
As Overzeetop said, what you need is gigabit ethernet to carry compressed signals and a computer at the other end to decode them. Trying to pipe uncompressed high-resolution video all over your house is impractical and, frankly, stupid.
No, I'm Spartacus!
Wait... what?
Try finding a "crappy" KVM that supports DVI. (Hint: they don't exist -- or at least they'd better not be crappy, for that price!)
Other than that, I agree with you.
I hate to break it to you, but newer displays (i.e., LCD and everything else that's not CRT) are inherently digital. So yes, we are talking about DAD conversion.
And kill the (expensive) light bulb in it while you're at it. It's probably cheaper to heat the room with your furnace, you know.
You talk about it in the same breath as the BSA and RIAA, and then still wonder what the issue is?!
The issue is that an "industry trade organization" is interested in profit, and might be motivated to corrupt the ideals behind Linux (and Free Software in general). That might be well-and-good from their perspective, but it wouldn't be good from the community's perspective. Therefore, people in the community could have cause to be worried about it.
Are you sure about that? I would imagine the market of people who would want to rip DVDs would be exactly the same market that would want a video iPod or an AppleTV, or who would buy videos from the iTunes store (of course, that might be part of why Apple hasn't done it -- it doesn't want to disrupt its own movie revenue).
DVD killer app? Media servers. There are people who've invested thousands of dollars into big DVD jukeboxes, just so they don't have to go find the particular disc when they want to watch a movie. Stuff like MythTV (or AppleTV, or Windows Media Center -- although the latter two wouldn't be as good because they're proprietary) would let these people store their whole movie collections on a server in their closet and access them through a pretty on-screen interface, which would be a great improvement -- if only it were legal.
Also, movie download services will make normal people start to see the advantages of keeping movies on the computer, which might drive them to start wondering why they can't do the same with all the DVDs they already have as well.
Well, first of all I'm not an expert, so anything I say might be incorrect. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain:
It's like public-key cryptography. The TPM has a code (aka "private key") inside it that you don't know, but that Microsoft or the Trusted Computing Group or whoever does. They can send the TPM a message such that it needs that key to construct a proper response, and thereby tell whether the TPM is real or not. Unless you have that key (which you can only get from the Trusted Computing Group, AFAIK), you can't emulate a TPM.
Que?! How the heck is that legal?!
Huh? Since when was I saying anything about one source of greenhouse gases vs. another? I completely agree that power plants (mostly coal-fired ones) are a huge problem, and that we should solve the problem as a whole by whatever is the most practical means (rather than picking out a specific little part and myopically focusing on it).
Of course, you've got to admit that a lot of the "low-hanging fruit" regarding power plants has already been plucked -- aside from the old ones, most already do have fairly extensive emissions equipment.
Incidentally, one problem I see that's common to environmentalists and not-environmentalists alike is that they all adopt one "pet technology" and try to push it as a "silver bullet" solution to the problem. For example, Bush et. al. keeps pushing hydrogen to the exclusion of all else, some people dismiss hydrogen completely and focus solely on corn ethanol, etc. That's stupid -- the real solution is going to be a combination of everything (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal/hydroelectric, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, batteries, fuel cells, ultracapacitors, etc.) and we really need to fund research in all of it instead of picking one thing and ignoring (and cutting the funding of!) the rest.
Almost. I'm saying that that's how the Internet does work, whether copyright law agrees with it or not. That's reality, and the law can't change it anymore than the law can make pi equal 3.
So what? They weren't the ones in charge when Microsoft's case was decided. (If they had been, and the result were the same, I'd be denouncing them as "democratic fascists" or something instead -- please don't mistake me for some kind of partisan asshole).
First of all, I have no problem with "modern agricultural technology." Although I do consider myself an environmentalist, I don't consider myself a Luddite.
Second, the whole reason why environmentalists protest against things is that they're harmful in the long run. If they weren't, there'd be nothing to protest about!
Third, farmland is finite whether "modern agricultural technology" is employed or not. So, either your suggestion is just as limited as mine, or you're asserting that technology will continue to allow production to increase indefinitely. For the latter to be true, then the technology must be sustainable (by definition), in which case we agree.
So either you're agreeing with me in that we need to use sustainable (i.e., environmentally responsible) technology, or you're agreeing with me that food production has a fixed upper limit (and therefore we might as well reach that limit in an environmentally responsible way).
You're right, I did already believe you -- or rather, you already believed me. : )
Sure, until GPUs get infected with Treacherous Computing. But what then?
Speaking of Apple products, have you ever wondered why iTunes can't rip DVDs just like it does with CDs? It's due to a thing called the DMCA, which makes it illegal for Apple to provide such a function regardless of how technologically easy (and valuable for Apple) it would be to do. And that's why we'll never see what you suggest happen -- at least, not as long as the DMCA still stands.
Emulating the TPM requires knowing the Trusted Computing Group's (or whoever's) private key. If you know that, you're already done.